Specifications:Tamron's 17-35mm DI features a maximum open aperture of F/2.8 at the 17mm setting, providing you with the advantage of shooting in dimly-lit conditions and helping to prevent camera shake that leads to blurred subjects. The fast f/2.8 aperture also contributes to a professional look with a beautifull blurred effect in the background : even at wide-angle where depth-of-field is commonly deeper.

Tamron's 17-35mm DI uses 3 aspherical elements , effectively minimizing various abberations. By using Hybrid Aspherical lens elements, the number of elements in this lens is reduced since even one aspherical element can compensate for the same abberations as it would take several spherical elements to do. The end result is both high image quality and compactness in this new wltra wide-angle zoom lens.

Tamron's 17-35mm DI features an LD (low dispertion) lens, which is made of special glass materials that have low dispertion indices to confine dispertion of spectra, a cause of chromatic abberations, to the absolute minimum, and provides sharp and clear images even at the corners.

Large hood/filters - Still looks a little plastic like - Heavy - Corners are soft wide open

I was very surprised by this lens. It caught me way off guard. I've been very fond of Sigma lenses and getting a Tamron was kind of a new thing, but I'm glad I got it. For the price, I think I underpaid for this amazing find.

Wide open, the lens is great at 17mm. It's center sharpness is hands down sharper than my 18-55mm mkII. I couldn't believe my eyes. My hands got cuts from holding my camera. That's how sharp they were. Stopped down, It became a hell of a lot sharper. Corners were pretty "meh" wide open, but from f/5.6 and on ward it was fine.

When I got then lens, it didn't come with the lens hood but I bought a Canon EW-83E (the one for the Canon 17-40mm) and It fit perfectly. A bit tight, but I was a perfect match. Made my lens look more "professional" but at the same time, It was amazingly HUGE! If I were to take a photo with the camera facing forward, I wouldn't be able to see the camera.

Speaking of huge, this lens is pretty darn heavy compared to a standard kit lens. I was surprised at how light it looked. Even with my battery grip attached, the lens managed to out weigh my camera. It's not a major problem, but when shooting with a flash the camera needs way more support.

The focusing ring turns smoothly, and the zoom ring, although reversed) turns without any hicups. The focusing ring coupled with a follow focus would be a videographers dream. It's really smooth like cream.

I'm using it on a crop body so effectively my actual focal length is 27.2-56mm so it's replaced my Canon 18-55mm as my wide angle walk around. I'm not really missing the extra 20mm because I have the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. It's pretty good for what it offers and I'm glad I made the jump.

If you are like me where money is a pretty large issue, and you're looking for a bargin-esque lens. Try finding this lens for APS-C sensors. It's a great kit lens replacement and It's a lens that can be brought if you're moving onto full frame

I picked this up a couple of years back to see if i liked the range before picking up a canon. I still have not picked up the canon but i doubt i'll give this up when i do.

Jul 24, 2011

HoosierJoeOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 24, 2009Location: United StatesPosts: 11

Review Date: Sep 27, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $245.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Sharp, excellent color rendition, light, low cost.

Cons:

The hood is huge. Doesn't focus as fast as my other lenses.

This is a little known gem of a lens. My current copy of this lens is my second time around with it. Both of my copies have been sharp and have excellent color. This is great indoor lens on a crop camera.

For the price, I really can't find any complaints about it. I love using it.

Sep 27, 2010

penghaiOfflineBuy and Sell: On

Registered: May 21, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 991

Review Date: May 18, 2010

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $250.00
| Rating: 10

Pros:

sharp, cheap

Cons:

build, not a name brand

Bought a used a few months after Tamron dis-continued it in 2009.

The lens is sharp. And may be sharper than you think.

I just acquired a Nikon 28 f3.5 AI lens which is one of the recommended old gem from Nikon. It's very sharp. I think it is a great buy until I did a side-by-side comparison with my Tamron.

What a surprise to me. The Tamron beats the Nikon 28 f3.5 prime from f3.5 and on in all my tests. Center sharpness is close. But the Tamron is more constrasty and more saturated color (with Nikon D700). The Tamron at 28mm f5.6 gives much better detail at edge than the Nikon at f5.6, even at f8.

What a lens at $250 ! (What else could you get with $250 these days?)

I'm very satisfied with this lens.

May 18, 2010

Dick Z.OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 12, 2008Location: United StatesPosts: 0

Review Date: Sep 13, 2008

Recommend? |
Price paid: Not Indicated

Pros:

Fast quiet focus. Very sharp pictures. good price and very good warrenty

Cons:

a little heavy. that's the only problem I could find.

I am very happy with this lens. I purchased it for my Canon XSi . Took it out of the box immediately and shot some pic's. in our back yard. I couldn't believe how sharp this lens is. It has to be one of the sharpest lenses I own. I did take the pictures closed down to F 5.6 and F 8. I certainly must have gotton a good copy. I have read some reports of customers getting bad copies. That's true with any lens you buy. My suggestion is, If your not happy with the copy you receive for any reason, return it for a replacement or refund. Don't be shy about returning it. After all it's sill a chunk of money for some of us.

I plan to use this as my all around picture taking lens. With my 1.6 factor that makes it a 27-56mm. lens. a good medium wide angle lens.

I ordered this lens from Amazon.com and received it in two days. Once again I'm very happy with this lens.

Sep 13, 2008

Dick Z.OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 12, 2008Location: United StatesPosts: 0

Review Date: Sep 12, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 10

Pros:

A very good wide angle lens for my Canon XSi. A good all around lens. It will replace my kit lens. The lens is SHARP, SHARP, SHARP As a matter of fact I believe it's the sharpest lens I own

Cons:

I can not see any thing negative to say about this lens.

This lens is without a boubt one fine lens. The price is right and a 6 year warrenty is great especially if the focus motor malfunctions. The F2.8 is nice but most pictures I take are stopped down to at least 5.6. I'm very satisfied with my purchase.

I have read some reports of bad copies being shipped. This happens even with the best lenses. So if you receive a bad copy, send it back to your dealer soon, preferably the next day or two. Most dealers will give you no argument.

Sep 12, 2008

bobreynoldsOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 9, 2008Location: United StatesPosts: 89

Review Date: Jun 9, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $299.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Very sharp throughout range, great contrast and color, good build quality, light weight

Cons:

Color response is a little warm. Might be a negative or positive depending on subject matter.

This is a great wide angle lens at a very competitive price. Super sharp and terrific contrast/color in a variety of shooting conditions. I use this lens primarily for landscape photography and have not been disappointed yet with it's performance. I don't think there is another lens in this price range that comes close to it's performance for the same $$.

Jun 9, 2008

Douglas WoOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 6, 2008Location: United StatesPosts: 0

Review Date: Jan 6, 2008

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $180.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

LOW Price!!!
Shaper than expected.
Fast focus.
77mm filter size.

Cons:

Little soft on wide aperture.

I was thinking about getting a Nikon pro wide lens... But there's no way I can afford over $1000 for a lens. Then I got a 24mm prime lens and it wasn't as sharp or as much contrast as I anticipated so I returned it.
With the some amount of money, I purchased this Tamron lens and it was a surprise. Despite of number of negative reviews on this site, I figured it worth a shot trying. That's because I see most negative reviews are from Canon users.
I got a used one but in excellent condition, almost brand new. It is well built and zoom ring is smooth with a little oily resistance which is a plus.
This lens is made with plastic and it's light but it doesn't feel like a cheap plastic toy. The image is little soft on wide open but it gives great contrast and sharp images at f/5.6 and smaller.
Softness at wide open is not a problem at all for me since I use this lens mainly for portrait with some landscape. I mean I stopped down the aperture for landscape anyway, so who care if it's soft on wide aperture when I do portrait? (hm... now it seems like they make it this way intentionally!?)
Just a fraction of what a Nikon pro lens would cost, I can take that little softness. Now this lens is constantly on my camera and until I can afford a f/2.8 Nikon, this would be my primary lens for a while.
If you need a wide angle lens with a budget, get this lens!

Jan 6, 2008

nle57OfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 8, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 1017

Review Date: May 27, 2007

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $225.00
| Rating: 7

Pros:

Cheap cheap cheap wide angle lens on FF.

Cons:

corners are dreadful.

Bought this lens as something inexpensive to hold me over until I could afford a 16-35II. I knew what I was getting myself into so it didn't come too much of a shock as I assessed the corners at 17mm, even stopped down. It was rather dreadful. However at 24mm or 35mm it wasn't as bad. Good lens to have to go on hikes and such.

May 27, 2007

forestwanOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Jan 9, 2006Location: N/APosts: 1

Review Date: Aug 8, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $340.00
| Rating: 7

Pros:

cheap with nice photo quality.

Cons:

poor build quality

Frankly to say, although i upgrade it to cannon 17-40/4.0L, I can not see the difference in photo quality, the only problem is that this lens is a littler slower to focus when the light is weak.

Aug 8, 2006

Ralph WagnerOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 10, 2002Location: United StatesPosts: 539

Review Date: Jun 22, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $399.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Lightweight, manual focus easy to use, very good & accurate colors.

Cons:

Flimsy hood. AF could be better, but okay for the price.

Nice lens to carry around. Very sharp at 5.6 and smaller. Decent alternative to the heavy Nikon.

Jun 22, 2006

pixmakerOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Sep 5, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 0

Review Date: May 5, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 8

Pros:

Clean, sharp images.

Cons:

Tends to flare more readily than my other (Nikon) lenses when shooting close to the sun or bright lights but no big problem.

My intent, when buying this lens, was to acquire a "super-wide" at a low price for shooting yacht interiors. Because most of my images were to be reproduced at small size in color brochures, I really wasn't looking for a high-performance lens...just wanted something wide at less than Nikon prices.

I've been pleasantly suprised. This is a fine piece of glass that has become my "on-the-camera" lens for weddings and many other jobs. Except for a tendency to flare when shooting into the sun, my images have been sharp and clean, well capable of delivering 16 x 20's from my Fuji S-2 Pro.

I believe it's an excellent value. Although I've heard of sharpness and distortion problems (from others,) I've seen no such behavior.

Recieved the lens yesterday and returning it today. Gives excellent performance in middle ranges but unacceptable at 17mm and 35mm. 17mm gives soft images and lower right corner of 35mm images is badly distorted on 1.6X sensor (possible element de-center problem) and this lens is designed for Full Frame cameras.

I bought this lens to replace my Canon 20-35 but it gives me no real improvement. In fact my 20-35 actually outperforms the Tamron 17-35 in edge performance and I see no difference in resolution.

Maybe I'm critical but I expect to get quality that the manufacturer claims performance to offer. I have two other Tamron lenses, the 28-75 Di and the 180 Macro Di and both these lenses are excellent. Tamron is not alone in disappointing performance. I've also had to return lenses from Sigma, Tokina and Canon. All these lenses did not perform as advertised. Is that too much to ask?

snead

May 2, 2006

ashleyOffline[ X ]

Registered: Feb 14, 2003Location: United KingdomPosts: 12

Review Date: Apr 19, 2006

Recommend? no |
Price paid: Not Indicated
| Rating: 2

Pros:

It feels good in the hands and its covers a nice range. Focus seems to be accurate and the finish is more than adequate.

Cons:

I think I have a serious lemon here. The central part of the images is good once I stop down to about F8 but the edges are appalling at all apertures. This is optically the worst lens I've ever used.

After running some test, I have contacted the dealer who has agreed to replace the lens (albeit with a few weeks wait for delivery) but I wasn't too impressed by the Tamron service people when I contacted them about this problem. All they could do was blame Canon but all of my Canon lenses are 1000% better at all apertures.

No doubt though that this would be a great lens if you can get a good copy. I just wonder about the number of times I hear users talking about about this lottery for getting good & bad lenses from nearly all makers and have to question the state of quality control these days.

Apr 19, 2006

Jay TaftOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Dec 28, 2004Location: United StatesPosts: 713

Review Date: Feb 20, 2006

Recommend? yes |
Price paid: $350.00
| Rating: 9

Pros:

Nice images, light, reasonable price.

Cons:

Haven't found any yet.

Bought this lens used here on FM. Haven't had any focus or image quality issues that others have mentioned. My copy makes fine images on the 10D with prints up to 12 x 18. Equal to or better than the EF 20mm F2.8 and EF 24 F2.8 at widest comparable apertures. Still have the 20 but just sold the 24.

So far I have used it mostly for landscape and plan to try it as a general purpose walk around lens as the weather moderates. The light weight is especially nice. I usually use it stopped down a bit for good depth of field, but tests wide open also produce acceptable images. If necessary I do a bit of sharpening with CS Pro II.

I have not owned wide "L" lenses so I can't compare the Tamron 17-35 to them, and such a comparison may not be fair. Nevertheless, after using the Tamron for a number of months I am not tempted by the EF 17-40 or EF 16-35 due to cost and weight.

I use my own rating system by adding together the numerical ratings on lens from FM and Photography Review (and Photodo for older lenses). Then I divide the sum by the price of the lens new from BH or Adorama. This gives a cost per rating unit. The Tamron 17-35 costs $50 per rating unit, the 17-40 costs $75 per rating unit and the 16-35 costs $160 per rating unit. I can live with this outcome for now.

Feb 20, 2006

ontimeOfflineImage Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 27, 2005Location: United StatesPosts: 2303

Review Date: Jan 30, 2006

Recommend? no |
Price paid: $450.00
| Rating: 8

Pros:

--

Cons:

Quality Control

This is just a warning. The reviewers that talked about quality control were correct. I tested a copy at my local Ritz and decided to buy it and try it instead (10 days to return), so I took a large load of pictures, all types of apertures, manual focus, autofocus, the works. The copy I had was terrible. My 17-55 EF-S Kit outperformed it by FAR. I called pretty much every camera shop on the island (O'ahu, Hawaii) and no one had it. I'm definitely not going to have one shipped at the risk of getting a piece of junk lens. So I gave up.

I believe the other reviewers, and I would still like to get a good copy of this lens. It just seems like they could have done a much better job of build consistency.